-
Allergy Feb 2014To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized... (Review)
Review
To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bronchodilator Agents; Epinephrine; Humans
PubMed: 24251536
DOI: 10.1111/all.12318 -
Beyond its anti-migraine properties, sumatriptan is an anti-inflammatory agent: A systematic review.Drug Development Research Nov 2021Sumatriptan is the first available medication from triptans family that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for migraine attacks and cluster headaches... (Review)
Review
Sumatriptan is the first available medication from triptans family that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for migraine attacks and cluster headaches in 1991. Most of its action is mediated by selective 5-HT receptor agonism. Recent investigations raised the possibility of repositioning of this drug to other indications beyond migraine, as increasing evidence suggests for an anti-inflammatory property of sumatriptan. We performed a literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar using "inflammation AND sumatriptan" or "inflammation AND 5HT1B/D" as the keywords. Then, articles were screened for their relevance and those directly discussing the correlation between inflammation and sumatriptan or 5HT1B/D were included. Total references reviewed or inclusion/exclusion were 340 retrieved full-text articles (n = 340), then based on critical assessment 66 of them were included in this systematic review. Our literature review indicates that at low doses, sumatriptan can reduce inflammatory markers (e.g., interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, and nuclear factor-κB), affects caspases and changes cells lifespan. Additionally, nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide signaling seem to be regulated by this drug. It also inhibits the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide. Sumatriptan protects against many inflammatory conditions including cardiac and mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion, skin flap, pruritus, peripheral, and central nervous system injuries such as spinal cord injury, testicular torsion-detorsion, oral mucositis, and other experimental models. Considering the safety and potency of low dose sumatriptan compared to corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive medications, it is worth to take advantage of sumatriptan in inflammatory conditions.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Humans; Inflammation; Migraine Disorders; Sumatriptan; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; United States
PubMed: 33792938
DOI: 10.1002/ddr.21819 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2020Although the cardiotoxic effects of cocaine are universally recognized, the association between cocaine and cardiomyopathy and/or heart failure is poorly understood. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although the cardiotoxic effects of cocaine are universally recognized, the association between cocaine and cardiomyopathy and/or heart failure is poorly understood. To conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis on the association between cocaine, heart failure, and cardiomyopathy, we first conducted a broad-term search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for human studies containing primary data on the relationship between cocaine and heart failure or cardiomyopathy. We were interested in studies with data beyond acute coronary syndromes. Retrieved studies were grouped into different categories based on possible hypotheses to test by meta-analysis. A second search with specific terms was then conducted. For grouped studies with sufficient clinical and methodological homogeneity, effect sizes were calculated and combined for meta-analysis by the Random Effects model. There is in general a need for more primary data studies that investigate heart failure and/or cardiomyopathy in cocaine users for mechanisms independent of ischemia. There were, however, enough studies to combine by meta-analyses that showed that chronic cocaine use is associated with anatomical and functional changes more consistent with diastolic heart failure instead of the commonly taught dilated cardiomyopathy pathway. In patients without a history of ACS, chronic cocaine use was not associated with significantly reduced EF. The few studies on acute cocaine had conflicting results on whether single-dose intravascular cocaine results in acute heart failure. Studies identified that included beta-blockade therapy in cocaine users with cardiac disease suggest that beta-blockers are not unsafe and that may be effective in the treatment of cocaine-associated heart failure. Chronic cocaine use is associated with anatomical and physiological changes of the heart muscle that are potentially reversible with beta-blockade therapy.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Cardiomyopathies; Cocaine; Heart Failure
PubMed: 33188223
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76273-1 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Apr 2017Overdoses with cardio-depressive medications can result in toxin-induced cardiogenic shock (TICS), a life-threatening condition characterized by severe hypotension and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Overdoses with cardio-depressive medications can result in toxin-induced cardiogenic shock (TICS), a life-threatening condition characterized by severe hypotension and ineffective tissue perfusion. Vasopressors are often employed in the treatment of shock to increase heart rate and blood pressure. We sought to conduct a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of vasopressors in improving hemodynamic function and survival in the treatment of TICS.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, TOXLINE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts.
STUDY SELECTION
We included studies evaluating the use of vasopressors in humans or animals with TICS. We limited human study types to randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and case reports.
DATA EXTRACTION
Our search yielded 913 citations and 144 of these met our inclusion criteria. 130 were human case reports and 14 were animal studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Human case report data showed vasopressors were ineffective more often than they were partially or fully effective. In the majority of animal studies, vasopressor treatment failed to improve hemodynamic parameters and resulted in decreased survival.
CONCLUSIONS
Human case reports and controlled animal experiments lead to different conclusions about vasopressors in TICS. Most animal studies indicate that vasopressors impair hemodynamic function and increase mortality. In contrast, human case reports suggest that vasopressors are often ineffective but not necessarily harmful.
Topics: Animals; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Overdose; Glucagon; Heart Rate; Hemodynamics; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 28152638
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1284329 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Jan 2018We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of intranasal sumatriptan, a selective serotonin agonist, compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of intranasal sumatriptan, a selective serotonin agonist, compared to placebo or other migraine therapeutics for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR), using RevMan software. We performed subgroup and meta-regression analyses for different doses and treatment endpoints. Sixteen RCTs (n = 5925 patients) matched our inclusion criteria. The overall effect-estimate showed that intranasal sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of pain relief (RR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.31, 2.21], p < 0.0001) and headache relief (RR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.35, 1.84], p < 0.00001) at 2 h. Although sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of headache relief at 30 min (RR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.08, 1.59], p = 0.005), no significant difference was found between both groups in terms of the frequency of pain-free participants at 30 min (RR = 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.88], p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression models showed that increasing the dose of sumatriptan reduced the time needed for headache relief; however, this clinical improvement with higher doses was associated with more frequent adverse events in comparison to smaller doses. In conclusion, intranasal sumatriptan is effective for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. However, it was associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of taste disturbance, compared to the placebo. Future RCTs are recommended to provide head-to-head comparison of different administration routes and drug formulations of sumatriptan.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intranasal; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT1 Receptor Agonists; Sumatriptan; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28942578
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-017-3119-y -
Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses.International Forum of Allergy &... Dec 2022Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.
METHODS
Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.
CONCLUSION
After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Nasal Decongestants; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Leukotriene Antagonists; Histamine Antagonists; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 35446512
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23015 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Sep 2016Preterm birth is the major cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity worldwide and a huge cost burden on healthcare. Between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation, for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm birth is the major cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity worldwide and a huge cost burden on healthcare. Between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation, for every day that delivery is delayed, survival increases by 3%.
AREAS COVERED
Following a systematic review of the literature, we have provided an overview of the use of tocolytics for the prevention of preterm birth and have examined the fetal and maternal adverse effects of the various tocolytic agents currently in use.
EXPERT OPINION
No tocolytic currently in use was developed specifically to treat preterm labour so most have multi-organ side effects. β2-agonists are relatively safe for the fetus but have rare and potentially serious maternal adverse effects. In contrast, prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors have potentially serious side effects for the fetus and neonate but have mild maternal gastrointestinal side effects. In Europe, the choice of first line therapy is either atosiban or nifedipine. The evidence base for atosiban is much more robust than for nifedipine. While their efficacy is similar, atosiban has placebo level side effects and is safer than nifedipine but is much more expensive.
Topics: Animals; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Nifedipine; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Tocolytic Agents; Vasotocin
PubMed: 27159501
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2016.1187128 -
Transplantation Apr 2024We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses evaluating the effects of different intraoperative vasoactive drugs on acute kidney injury (AKI) and other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses evaluating the effects of different intraoperative vasoactive drugs on acute kidney injury (AKI) and other perioperative outcomes in adult liver transplant recipients. We searched multiple electronic databases using words from the "liver transplantation" and "vasoactive drug" domains. We included all randomized controlled trials conducted in adult liver transplant recipients comparing 2 different intravenous vasoactive drugs or 1 against a standard of care that reported AKI, intraoperative blood loss, or any other postoperative outcome. We conducted 4 frequentist network meta-analyses using random effect models, based on the interventions' mechanism of action, and evaluated the quality of evidence (QoE) using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations recommendations. We included 9 randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressor drugs (vasoconstrictor or inotrope), 3 comparing a somatostatin infusion (or its analogues) to a standard of care, 11 comparing different vasodilator infusions together or against a standard of care, and 2 comparing vasoconstrictor boluses at graft reperfusion. Intravenous clonidine was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay (very low QoE), and some vasodilators were associated with lower creatinine level 24 h after surgery (low to very low QoE). Phenylephrine and terlipressin were associated with less intraoperative blood loss when compared with norepinephrine (low and moderate QoE). None of the vasoactive drugs improve any other postoperative outcomes, including AKI. There is still important equipoise regarding the best vasoactive drug to use in liver transplantation for most outcomes. Further studies are required to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Blood Loss, Surgical; Network Meta-Analysis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasodilator Agents; Acute Kidney Injury
PubMed: 37525360
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004744 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Neonatal hypotension that is refractory to volume expansion, catecholamines, or corticosteroids has a mortality of about 50%. Optimization of blood pressure and tissue... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonatal hypotension that is refractory to volume expansion, catecholamines, or corticosteroids has a mortality of about 50%. Optimization of blood pressure and tissue perfusion in refractory hypotension may be crucial to improve clinical outcomes. Vasopressin, a neuropeptide hormone, or its analogue terlipressin has been used to treat refractory hypotension in neonates and may be effective.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vasopressin and its synthetic analogues (e.g. terlipressin) in decreasing mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, and improving survival in neonates with refractory hypotension. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of vasopressin and its analogues (terlipressin) on improvement in blood pressure, increase in urine output, decrease in inotrope score, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage, chronic lung disease, and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in neonates with refractory hypotension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the literature in January 2012, using the search strategy recommended by the Cochrane Neonatal Group. We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE), abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, web sites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com and in the reference list of identified articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized trials evaluating vasopressin or its analogues, at any dosage or duration used as an adjunct to standard therapy (any combination of volume expansion, inotropic agents and corticosteroids) to treat refractory hypotension in neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration for conducting a systematic review. Two review authors (BS and MP) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility for inclusion. We obtained the full text version if eligibility could not be done reliably by title and abstract. We resolved any differences by mutual discussion. We designed electronic forms for trial inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, and for requesting additional published information from authors of the original reports.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search did not identify any completed or ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. Three studies that did not include neonates and one study where the objective was not to treat neonates with refractory hypotension were excluded.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to recommend or refute the use of vasopressin or its analogues in the treatment of refractory hypotension in neonates. Well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled studies are necessary to address efficacy, optimal dosing, safety and long-term neurodevelopmental and pulmonary outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Hypotension; Infant, Newborn; Lypressin; Terlipressin; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 23543571
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009171.pub2 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2012Catecholamines are the most used vasopressors in vasodilatory shock. However, the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity and the subsequent loss of catecholamine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Catecholamines are the most used vasopressors in vasodilatory shock. However, the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity and the subsequent loss of catecholamine pressor activity necessitate the search for other options. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of vasopressin and its analog terlipressin compared with catecholamine infusion alone in vasodilatory shock.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications between 1966 and 2011 was performed. The Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on vasopressin and terlipressin in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of vasopressin and/or terlipressin compared with catecholamine in adult patients with vasodilatory shock. The assessed outcomes were: overall survival, changes in the hemodynamic and biochemical variables, a decrease of catecholamine requirements, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine trials covering 998 participants were included. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model showed a reduction in norepinephrine requirement among patients receiving terlipressin or vasopressin infusion compared with control (standardized mean difference, -1.58 (95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -1.44); P < 0.0001). Overall, vasopressin and terlipressin, as compared with norepinephrine, reduced mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.87 (0.77 to 0.99); P = 0.04). Vasopressin compared with norepinephrine decreased mortality in adult patients (RR, 0.87 (0.76 to 1.00); P = 0.05) and in patients with septic shock (42.5% vs. 49.2%, respectively; RR, 0.87 (0.75 to 1.00); P = 0.05; number needed to treat, 1 to 15). There was no difference in adverse events between the vasopressin and control groups (RR, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47); P = 0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
Vasopressin use in vasodilatory shock is safe, associated with reduced mortality, and facilitates weaning of catecholamines. In patients with septic shock, use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine may also decrease mortality.
Topics: Adult; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hemodynamics; Humans; Lypressin; Norepinephrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock; Terlipressin; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 22889256
DOI: 10.1186/cc11469